140 


REVERE  RUBBER  CO. 

♦  ♦  -t-  ♦ 


THE  VERY  BEST 

FIRE  hfOSE 

IN  THE  WORLD. 


«l  WE  SELL  WHERE  OTHERS  FAIL  [x>  i 


W|V[.  HUdLiJVIAH,  Manager, 

64  Reade  St.,  NEW  YORE 

Represented  by 

JAS.  A  LAMBERT, 


218  E.  Fair  St.,  ATLANTA,  GA. 


THE  HISTORY 


OF 

NEGRO  SUFFRAGE 

IN  THE  SOUTH 


STEPHEN  B.  WEEKS 

t 


Reprinted  from  Political  Science  Quarterly,  VoI.  IX.,  No.  4 


BOSTON 

GINN  &  COMPANY 

1894 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/historyofnegrosu1865week 


THE  HISTORY  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE 

SOUTH.1 


I.  Before  the  Revolution. 


S  to  race  requirements  for  suffrage  in  colonial  times,  Dr. 


■Tx  Cortlandt  F.  Bishop,  in  his  History  of  Elections  in  the 
American  Colonies,  says  that  he  knows  of  “no  law  that  would 
prevent  an  Indian  or  a  negro,  if  otherwise  qualified,  from  voting 
in  the  northern  colonies.”  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn, 
there  were  at  first  no  laws  disfranchising  colored  freemen  in 
the  South.  Dr.  Bishop  even  goes  further  and  says  that  such 
laws  were  “of  a  comparatively  late  date.” 

North  Carolina  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  disfranchise 
the  negro.  In  the  Manuscript  Revisal  of  the  Laws,  made  in 
1715,  we  find  it  declared  that  “no  negro,  mullatto  or  Indians 
shall  be  capable  of  voting  for  members  of  Assembly.”  2  We 
can  only  approximate  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  law. 
Burrington,3  in  his  comments  on  the  Revisal,  says  that  this 
was  “  an  old  law  taken  from  one  of  the  Lords  Proprietors’ 
original  constitutions  and  hath  undergone  little  alteration.” 
He  recommends  that  the  act  be  repealed,  as  the  people 
“  assemble  and  chuse  Burgesses  on  the  day  by  the  act 
appointed  without  any  writ  for  it.”  The  law  was  repealed  by 
the  king’s  order  in  1734,  probably  in  response  to  this  recom¬ 
mendation.  It  was  contrary,  moreover,  to  the  spirit  of  the 
colonial  government ;  for  the  proprietors,  in  their  instructions 
to  the  governor  of  Albemarle  in  1667,  had  granted  the  ballot 
to  all  freemen.4  An  act  of  the  year  1743  carried  out  the  spirit 

1  This  paper  was  presented  to  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  on  Government, 
at  Chicago,  in  August,  1893.  The  writer  wishes  to  express  his  thanks  to  Dr.  C. 
Meriwether  for  valued  criticisms  and  suggestions  on  the  subject. 

2  Law  printed  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  II,  213,  and  quoted  by  Dr. 
Bishop,  who  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  “  Mustee,”  which  is  to  be  found  in 
the  original,  is  omitted  in  this  reprint.  The  act  stands  10  in  the  revisal  of  1752. 

8  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  180.  4  Ibid.,  I,  165. 


672 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


of  this  instruction  and  gave  the  suffrage  to  all  freemen,  but 
this  was  repealed  before  1760.  An  election  law  of  this  latter 
year  provided  that  all  freeholders  should  vote,  and  defined  a 
freeholder  as  a 

person  who,  bona  fide ,  hath  an  estate  real  for  his  own  life  time,  or 
the  life  of  another,  or  any  estate  of  greater  dignity  or  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  acres  in  the  county  which  by  the  law  enables  him  to  vote 
or  be  a  candidate  for  such  county. 

No  other  election  law  was  passed  by  the  colony.  In  theory, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  practice,  the  free  negro  had  after 
this  the  right  to  the  ballot. 

South  Carolina  was  the  next  to  forbid  the  negro  the  ballot. 
As  early  as  1701  and  1703,  complaints  had  been  made  from 
Berkeley  County,  that  “free  negroes  were  received  and  taken 
for  as  good  electors  as  the  best  freeholders  in  the  province,”  1 
but  the  law  of  1704  prescribed  no  qualifications  save  a  freehold 
and  a  certain  amount  of  property.2  The  law  of  1716  was  the 
first  to  insert  the  word  white.3  This  was  retained  in  the  laws 
of  1721,  1745  and  1759, 4  and  was  unchanged  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  1776.  Though  these  earlier  laws  required  that  electors 
must  be  white,  it  was  not  till  1759  that  the  same  qualification 
was  expressly  applied  to  the  elected. 

In  Virginia  an  act  of  1705  had  forbidden  negroes,  mulattoes 
and  Indians  to  hold  office.  They  were  disfranchised  for  the 
first  time  in  1723. 5  When  this  law  was  referred  by  the  Board 
of  Trade  to  Richard  West  for  the  consideration  of  its  legal 
aspects,  he  replied:  “  I  cannot  see  why  one  freeman  should  be 
used  worse  than  another  merely  upon  account  of  his  com¬ 
plexion.” 6  This  law  was  probably  repealed  by  proclamation 
after  being  in  force  ten  years  or  more  ;  for  it  is  found  in  the 
revisal  of  1733,  but  not  in  that  of  1766. 7  Another  act  dis- 

1  See  the  petition  of  Jos.  Boone  in  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  639. 

2  Cooper,  Statutes  at  Large  of  S.  C.,  II,  249. 

sI6id„  III,  3. 

4  Ibid.,  Ill,  136,  657  ;  IV,  99. 

6  Hening,  Statutes  at  Large  of  Va.,  Ill,  250;  IV,  133,  134. 

6  Sumner’s  Works,  X,  193. 

7  Hening  quotes  it  from  the  ed.  of  1733,  p.  339. 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  673 

franchising  negroes,  mulattoes  and  Indians,  although  free¬ 
holders,  was  passed  in  Virginia  in  1762.1 
Georgia  disfranchised  the  negroes  in  1761. 2 


II.  From  the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War. 

Manhood  suffrage  was  not  the  prerogative  of  white  men  in 
the  South  where  the  slaveholding  aristocracy  predominated. 
This  aristocracy  was  to  its  own  members  a  democracy  of  de¬ 
mocracies  ;  to  the  outsider  it  was  an  oligarchy.  The  struggle 
against  the  limitations  which  it  imposed  went  on  steadily.  The 
evolution  was  the  same  in  all  the  states.  Virginia  may  be 
taken  as  a  type. 

Under  the  earliest  laws  of  Virginia,  all  freemen  had  a  voice 
in  affairs.  This  concerned  first  the  daily  matters  of  the  hun¬ 
dreds,  afterward  the  election  of  Burgesses.  But  in  1655  the 
law  was  changed  by  the  Commonwealth  men,  and  suffrage  was 
confined  to  “housekeepers,  whether  freeholders,  leaseholders 
or  otherwise  tenants.”  This  law  was  repealed  in  1656,  but  in 
1670  the  king,  by  letter  to  the  royal  governor,  and  without 
consent  of  the  Virginia  Assembly,  went  back  to  the  principle 
first  applied  by  the  liberal  party  in  1655.  None  but  “freehold¬ 
ers  and  housekeepers  ”  now  had  the  suffrage,  and  the  reason 
is  plain :  the  persons  who  had  served  their  time  as  indentured 
servants  had  little  interest  in  the  country  and  made  disturb¬ 
ances  at  the  elections.3  The  act  of  Charles  II  gave  the  colony 
an  aristocratic  character.4  The  principles  thus  embodied  in 
the  organic  laws  of  the  colony  were  not  changed  in  1776. 
The  landholding  aristocracy  prided  themselves  on  their  supe¬ 
rior  power  and  privileges.5  But  exclusion  from  a  voice  in  the 
elections  was  not  pleasant  to  the  landless  class  of  citizens, 

1  Hening,  VII,  517.  2  Bishop,  op.  cit.,  52. 

8  Hening,  I,  403,  41 1,  475;  Cooke’s  Virginia,  222-224. 

4  It  is  worthy  of  note,  as  an  indication  of  the  democratic  character  of  Bacon 

and  his  followers,  that  the  right  of  suffrage  was  restored  to  all  freemen  by  them 
in  1676,  but  their  laws  were  repealed  the  next  year.  Hening,  II,  356,  380. 

5  Debates  in  Va.  Convention  of  1829-30,  p.  57. 


674 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


who  were  growing  in  numbers,  wealth  and  influence.  The  con¬ 
vention  of  1830  yielded  to  the  pressure,  and  the  new  consti¬ 
tution  extended  the  right  of  suffrage,  though  still  with  a  j 
property  or  tax  qualification,  to  “  white  male  citizens  of  the 
commonwealth.”  1  All  the  discussions  of  this  clause  of  the 
constitution  deal  with  “  free  white  men.”  There  is  no  reference 
to  the  right  of  free  colored  men  to  the  franchise ;  they  seem 
not  to  have  been  considered  at  all  in  this  connection.2  The 
constitution  of  1850  cut  out  the  tax  qualification  and  thus 
established,  with  certain  requirements  for  residence,  white 
manhood  suffrage.  In  1864  a  convention  of  representatives 
from  those  parts  of  Virginia  which  were  then  within  the  Union 
lines  framed  a  constitution  which  gave  the  franchise  to  white 
male  citizens  only.  Negroes  never  voted  in  Virginia  in  the 
period  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War. 

This  is  not  essentially  different  from  the  course  of  develop¬ 
ment  in  most  of  the  other  Southern  states.  Seven  states 
besides  Virginia  —  South  Carolina,  Florida,  Alabama,  Missis¬ 
sippi,  Louisiana,  Texas,  Arkansas  —  limited  the  ballot  to  white 
men  clearly  and  distinctly.  The  same  was  true  of  Georgia, 
under  the  constitution  of  1 777.  The  constitution  of  1789, 
however,  gave  the  franchise  to  “  citizens  and  inhabitants,”  and 
this  remained  the  law  until  1865  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  the 
expression  was  never  intended  to  include  the  free  negro.  The 
Georgia  Code  of  1851  forbade  emancipation  ;  forbade  free 
negroes  to  come  into  the  state  ;  required  those  who  were 
already  there  to  be  registered  annually;  and  gave  the  clerk  1 
power  to  refuse  certificates  of  registration.3 

North  Carolina,  by  the  constitution  of  1776,  provided  that 
every  freeman  with  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres  should  vote  for 
members  of  the  state  Senate,  and  that  every  freeman  who 
had  paid  public  taxes  should  vote  for  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  The  Tennessee  constitution  of  1796,  probably 
under  the  influence  of  the  North  Carolina  provision,  gave  the 

1  See  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions  of  the  U.  S. 

2  Debates,  42  et  seq. 

3  A  law  which  sold  as  slaves  those  who  did  not  take  out  such  certificates 
was  repealed  in  1824. 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


675 


ballot  to  all  freeholders,  but  the  constitution  of  1834  restricted 
suffrage  to  white  men.1  This  restriction  no  doubt  had  a  reflex 
influence  on  North  Carolina.  We  have  seen  that  North  Caro¬ 
lina  had  no  law  in  1776  establishing  a  color  qualification  for  the 
ballot.  But  there  is  doubt  as  to  whether  or  not  the  framers  of 
the  constitution  of  1776  intended  to  include  free  negroes  as  a 
part  of  the  freemen  of  the  state.  Mr.  Daniel  said  in  the  conven¬ 
tion  of  1835  that  the  bill  of  rights  was  understood  to  apply  only 
to  free  white  men.2  Mr.  Macon  said  that  free  negroes  were 
never  known  to  vote  before  the  Revolution,  that  they  were 
never  considered  citizens,  and  did  not  exercise  the  privilege 
until  many  years  after.3  Mr.  Gaston  explained  this  as  due  to 
the  fact  that  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  there  were  very  few 
free  negroes,  for  there  had  been  little  emancipation.  But, 
however  this  may  have  been,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  they  were 
considered  citizens  as  early  as  1778, 4  and  that  they  enjoyed  the 
suffrage  up  to  1835,  when  the  constitution  was  changed. 
Before  1835  the  supreme  court  had  declared  them  citizens.5 
And  later,  in  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Manuel,6  which  came 
up  in  1838,  Judge  Gaston  said: 

Slaves  manumitted  here  become  freemen,  and  therefore,  if  born 
within  North  Carolina,  are  citizens  of  North  Carolina,  and  all  free 
persons  born  within  the  state  are  born  citizens  of  the  state.  .  .  . 
The  constitution  extended  the  elective  franchise  to  every  freeman 
who  had  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  and  paid  a  public  tax ; 
and  it  is  a  matter  of  universal  notoriety  that  under  it  free  persons, 
without  regard  to  color,  claimed  and  exercised  the  franchise,  until  it 
was  taken  away  from  free  men  of  color  a  few  years  since  by  our 
amended  constitution/ 

1  No  man  was  excluded  from  the  ballot  for  color  if  he  was  a  competent  witness 
against  a  white  man.  Unfortunately  for  us,  the  debates  in  this  convention  were 
never  published.  The  arguments  on  this  question  would  have  been  of  great  in¬ 
terest.  There  is  nothing  of  service  in  the  journal  of  the  convention. 

2  Debates  in  Convention  of  1835,  P-  61.  3  Ibid.,  65-69. 

4  Ibid.,  352.  5  Ibid.,  357.  6  4  Dev.  &  Bat.,  25. 

7  The  same  court  said  in  1844,  in  the  case  of  The  State  vs.  Newsom,  that  this 
important  case  in  1838  was  considered  “with  an  anxiety  and  care  worthy  of 

the  principle  involved.”  See  use  made  of  this  in  Sumner’s  Works,  VIII, 

461,  462. 


676  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 

So  clearly  established  had  the  negro’s  right  to  vote  become 
that  many  of  the  county  clerks,  in  making  their  returns  in  1833, 
failed  to  distinguish  between  black  and  white  polls.1  But  the 
right  was  not  uniformly  exercised.  In  a  number  of  counties 
negroes  had  never  voted.  In  general,  however,  they  had  been 
allowed  the  franchise,  and  their  numbers  were  considerable. 
In  Halifax  County  there  were  three  hundred  colored  voters,  in 
Hertford  one  hundred  and  fifty,  in  Chowan  fifty,  in  Pasquo¬ 
tank  seventy-five.  In  some  counties  they  held  the  balance  of 
power,  and  Mr.  Daniel  remarks  that  he  found,  after  thirty 
years’  observation,  that  they  uniformly  voted  for  men  of  char¬ 
acter  and  talent.2  Their  votes  were  eagerly  sought  for.  “The 
opposing  candidates,  for  the  nonce  oblivious  of  social  distinc¬ 
tion  and  intent  only  on  catching  votes,  hobnobbed  with  the 
men  and  swung  corners  all  with  dusky  damsels  at  election 
balls.”3 

The  project  to  deprive  the  free  negroes  of  the  suffrage  met 
with  much  opposition.  This  project  was  not  the  offspring  of 
momentary  caprice,  but  of  a  long  pent-up  feeling.  In  1826 
Bartlett  Yancey  had  written  Willie  P.  Mangum  that  there  was 
hostility  to  free-negro  suffrage  in  all  the  counties  and  in  almost 
all  the  towns,  and  that  this  feeling  was  due  largely  to  the 
work  of  colonization  and  abolition  societies.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  was  urged  in  the  North  Carolina  convention  that  some 
of  those  colored  men,  now  to  be  disfranchised,  had  done  service 
in  the  war  of  the  Revolution.  Some  had  taken  the  oath  of 
allegiance.  Some  were  freeholders,  and  these,  with  others, 
were  taxpayers.4  They  had  been  accustomed  to  exercise  the 


1  Debates  in  Convention  of  1835,  p.  30. 

2  Ibid.,  61,  69,  80,  353,  355.  In  Tennessee,  Cave  Johnson  and  John  Bell  said 
they  were  elected  to  Congress  by  the  votes  of  colored  persons  (Sumner’s  Works, 
X,  192).  In  1830  the  free  negro  population  of  North  Carolina  was  19,543;  of 
Tennessee,  4555.  The  North  Carolina  counties  with  a  free  negro  population 
of  more  than  400  were  :  Beaufort,  with  487  ;  Brunswick,  408  ;  Craven,  1003  ;  Cum¬ 
berland,  686;  Granville,  759;  Halifax,  2079;  Hertford,  953 ;  Northampton,  936; 
Orange,  619;  Pasquotank,  1038  ;  Robeson,  605  ;  Wake,  833.  Davidson,  with  471, 
had  the  largest  free  negro  population  in  Tennessee.  Hawkins  came  next,  with  386. 

8  Buxton,  Reminiscences  of  the  Bench  and  Fayetteville  Bar. 

4  Debates,  61. 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SNEER  AGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


677 


right,  and  deprivation  would  now  be  a  hardship.  They  would 
be  useful  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  slaves,  should  the  latter  plot 
rebellion:  for  when  the  authorities  of  San  Domingo  in  1791 
put  free  negroes  for  meritorious  services,  on  the  same  footing 
as  white  men,  it  produced  the  happiest  effect ;  but  when  the 
French  government  deprived  them  of  this  equality  a  few  years 
later,  it  had  the  effect  of  throwing  them  into  the  ranks  of  the 
slaves.1  The  convention  was  quite  evenly  divided  on  the  ques¬ 
tion,  and  the  debates  were  very  earnest.  Various  property 
limitations  were  suggested  by  way  of  compromise,  but  the  out¬ 
come  was  the  adoption  of  the  provision  excluding  all  negroes 
from  the  suffrage,  by  a  vote  of  66  to  61. 

This  was  the  end  of  negro  suffrage  in  North  Carolina  and 
in  the  South  until  the  days  of  Reconstruction. 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  compare  the  conditions  of  suffrage 
in  the  North  and  West  to  see  if  these  states  were  any  more 
liberal  than  those  in  the  South.  Omitting  the  eleven  Southern 
states  under  consideration,  we  can  divide  all  the  remaining 
states  into  three  groups  :  (1)  Those  that  never  established  a 
color  qualification  for  the  suffrage  ;  (2)  those  that  established 
such  a  qualification,  but  only  at  a  relatively  late  date  ;  (3)  those 
which  limited  the  suffrage  to  white  men  from  the  beginning. 

1.  Maine,  in  1820,  and  Rhode  Island,  in  1842,  granted  the 
suffrage  to  male  citizens  of  the  United  States.  There  is  no 
mention  of  color,  but  negroes  might  have  been  excluded,  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  not  citizens  ;  for  in  1833  Chief  Justice 
Daggett,  of  Connecticut,  charged  that  “  slaves,  free  blacks 
and  Indians”  were  not  citizens  within  the  meaning  of  section  2, 
article  4,  of  the  federal  constitution.  This  anticipated  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.2  There  is  no  mention  of  color  in  the  laws  of 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont.  But  New 

1  Debates,  354. 

2  Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage,  II,  46.  John  F.  Denny,  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  in  his  Inquiry  into  the  Political  Grade  of  the  Free  Colored  Population 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  elaborately  sustains  the  same  view. 
The  supreme  court  of  Tennessee  decided  in  1838  that  negroes  were  not  citizens 
under  the  United  States  constitution  (Kent,  II,  301).  On  the  other  hand,  see 
decision  of  the  North  Carolina  supreme  court,  ante. 


678 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


Hampshire  found  it  necessary  in  1857,  and  Vermont  in 
1858,  to  enact  that  negroes  should  not  be  excluded  from 
the  ballot. 

2.  Of  the  second  group  Delaware  introduced  the  color  quali¬ 
fication  in  1792  ;  Kentucky,  in  1799;  Maryland,  in  1809  and 
1810  ; 1  Connecticut,  in  1818  ;  New  Jersey,  in  1820;  and  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  in  1838. 

The  right  of  the  negro  to  vote  was  disputed  under  the  old 
constitution  of  Pennsylvania  prior  to  1838.  It  was  held  that 
“freeman  ”  was  used  in  a  political  sense,  that  it  did  not  mean 
one  who  was  free  of  condition  merely,  and  that  a  negro  could 
not  be  in  Pennsylvania  a  freeman  in  this  sense.  The  supreme 
court,  in  Hobbs  vs.  Fogg,  in  1837,  declared  that  a  negro  or  a 
mulatto  was  not  entitled  to  vote.2 

It  is  certain  that  negroes  voted  in  the  early  years  of  Mary-  • 
land.  Evidence  was  given  in  the  Baltimore  county  court  about 
1810,  that  a  certain  free  black  of  that  county  had  voted  and 
had  been  allowed  to  give  evidence  in  a  case  in  which  white 
persons  were  concerned.  We  hear  of  a  free  black  who  was 
accustomed  to  vote  in  Baltimore  and  did  not  know  of  the 
amendment  of  1810  until  his  vote  was  challenged.  It  is  said 
that  he  thereupon  addressed  the  crowd  about  the  polls  “  in  a 
strain  of  true  and  passionate  eloquence.”  3 

New  York  made  an  honest  effort  to  help  the  negro  to  the 
ballot.  There  was  no  color  line  in  the  constitution  of  1 777; 
but  by  a  law  enacted  first  in  1811  and  reenacted  in  1814,  a 
negro,  on  offering  to  vote,  had  first  to  produce  a  certificate  of 
freedom.  The  constitution  of  1821  further  differentiated 
between  black  and  white  electors,  and  enacted  that  no  negro 
should  vote  unless  he  had  been  a  citizen  for  three  years,  and 
had  for  a  year  possessed  a  freehold  worth  $250  above  all 
encumbrances  and  had  actually  paid  a  tax  on  the  same.  In 
1 846,  the  question  of  equal  suffrage  for  the  two  races  was  sub- 

1  It  was  provided  in  1783  in  Maryland  that  no  colored  person  freed  after  that 
date,  nor  the  issue  of  such,  should  vote. 

2  Kent,  II,  301.  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  in  delivering  the  opinion,  credits  the 
report  of  a  decision  in  1795,  that  negroes  could  not  vote.  Hurd,  II,  70,  72. 

8  Brackett,  The  Negro  in  Maryland,  186. 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


679 


mitted  to  the  people  separately,  in  the  shape  of  a  constitutional 
amendment,  and  was  rejected  by  223,834  to  85,306.  It  met 
the  same  fate  in  i860,  by  337,984  to  197,503,  and  again  in 
1868,  by  282,403  to  249, 802. 1 

3.  None  of  the  other  states  and  territories  that  had  organ¬ 
ized  governments  in  1861  had  ever  granted  the  ballot  to  the 
negro.  This  includes  California,  Colorado,  Illinois,  Indiana,2 
Iowa,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Minnesota  (which  declares  that  “  no 
member  of  this  state  shall  be  disfranchised”  and  then  limits 
the  ballot  to  “  whites  and  persons  of  Indian  or  mixed  white  and 
Indian  blood”),  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  Ohio,3  Oregon, 
Utah  and  Wisconsin.4 

From  this  survey  of  the  North  and  West,  it  is  evident  that 
few  of  the  states  that  fought  for  the  Union  were  then  willing 
to  grant  suffrage  to  the  negro  on  equal  terms  with  the  whites. 
Five  of  the  New  England  states  had  granted  him  the  privilege 
in  form.  It  was  not  perfect  even  here,  for  Chanceller  Kent 
says  in  the  sixth  edition  of  his  commentaries,  published  in 
1848,  —  and  this  statement  is  quoted  with  approval  by  Chief 
Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  —  that  in  no  part  of  the 
country  except  Maine  did  the  negro,  in  point  of  fact,  participate 
equally  with  the  whites  in  the  exercise  of  civil  and  political 
rights.5  The  middle  states  had  all  ultimately  withdrawn  or 
restricted  the  right  to  vote.  All  the  new  Western  states, 
including  those  where  slavery  was  forbidden  by  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  had  refused  the  negro  the  suffrage.  Some  required 
negroes  to  be  registered  ;  one  (Ohio)  to  give  bond  that  they 

r  Poore,  1334,  1343,  1350,  1353  ;  Hurd,  II,  54,  55. 

2  Illinois  by  the  constitution  of  1848,  and  Indiana  by  that  of  1851,  forbade  free 
negroes  to  migrate  to  the  state  and  forbade  masters  to  carry  slaves  into  the  state 
for  the  purpose  of  freeing  them.  These  sections  had  previously  formed  part  of 
the  statute  law. 

8  The  privilege  was  not  denied  to  those  that  were  more  than  half  white.  In 
1859  a  law  was  passed  requiring  judges  to  reject  the  offered  vote  of  a  person 
“  who  has  a  distinct  and  visible  admixture  of  African  blood.” 

4  Hurd,  II,  122.  A  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  Wisconsin  made  in  1866, 
in  the  case  of  Gillespie  vs.  Palmer,  held  that  the  right  of  suffrage  had  been 
extended  to  negroes  in  that  state  by  the  vote  of  the  people  at  the  general  election 
held  Nov.  6,  1849.  Poore,  2022,  2030. 

5  Dred  Scott  decision,  22;  so  in  Kent,  10th  ed.  (i860),  II,  298. 


68o 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


would  not  become  a  public  charge  ;  two  (Indiana  and  Illinois) 
even  forbade  them  to  enter  their  borders  and  forbade  masters 
to  bring  slaves  there  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  freedom. 
Nor  was  this  feeling  of  repugnance  overcome  by  the  war. 
In  1865  Connecticut  gave  a  majority  of  6272  against  negro 
suffrage;  in  1867  Ohio  voted  it  down  by  50,620,  Kansas  by 
8923  and  Minnesota  by  1298. 


III.  The  Evolution  of  Negro  Suffrage. 

White  manhood  suffrage  was  recognized  in  none  of  the 
original  thirteen  states  in  1776.  After  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  the  tendency  was  steadily  toward  the 
extension  of  the  franchise.  But  the  South  had  not  arrived  at 
universal  suffrage  for  white  men  in  i860.  North  Carolina 
(from  1854)  and  Georgia  (from  1789)  required  the  payment  of 
taxes  and  Florida  (from  1838)  required  military  service,  as 
prerequisites  for  voting.  There  was  little  thought  of  uniform 
suffrage  for  black  and  white  in  any  part  of  the  Union.  Negro 
suffrage  was  one  of  the  results  of  the  war.  The  constitutional 
history  of  the  Civil  War  is  summarized  in  the  thirteenth,  four¬ 
teenth  and  fifteenth  amendments,  in  which  may  be  traced  the 
gradual  growth  of  the  sentiment  of  the  nation  concerning 
slavery  and  the  political  rights  of  the  negro.  The  victory  of 
the  federal  armies  sealed  the  fate  of  slavery,  and  this  was  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  thirteenth  amendment.  The  Republican  victory 
in  the  elections  of  1866  led  to  the  incorporation  of  impartial  or 
negro  suffrage  in  the  Reconstruction  Acts  ;  and  the  victory  of 
the  same  party  in  1868  led  to  the  incorporation  of  impartial 
suffrage  in  the  constitution.  The  fourteenth  amendment 
advanced  the  negro  to  the  status  of  a  citizen,  but  did  nothing 
affirmatively  to  confer  the  suffrage  upon  him  ;  it  aided  him 
negatively  by  imposing  a  penalty  on  his  exclusion.  Nor  did 
the  fifteenth  amendment  give  him  the  right  to  vote  ;  it  merely 
invested  the  citizen  of  the  United  States  with  the  right  to  be 
exempt  from  discrimination  in  the  exercise  of  the  elective 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  68 1 

franchise,  on  account  of  his  race,  color  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude.1 

Negro  suffrage  formed  no  part  of  the  policy  of  the  Republican 
Party  on  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  1865.  The  leaders  of  the 
party  declared  at  that  time  that  negro  suffrage  was  unwise  and 
dangerous.2  In  a  speech  at  Richmond,  Indiana,  on  Septem¬ 
ber  29,  1865,  Hon.  Oliver  P.  Morton,  in  discussing  the  ques¬ 
tion,  remarked  that  to  say  “men  just  emerged  from  slavery 
are  qualified  for  the  exercise  of  political  power,  is  to  make  the 
strongest  pro-slavery  argument  I  ever  heard.  It  is  to  pay  the 
highest  compliment  to  the  institution  of  slavery.” 

There  was  no  negro  suffrage  in  President  Lincoln’s  plan  of 
reconstruction.  His  theory  was  that  the  relations  of  the 
insurrectionary  states  to  the  federal  government  were  simply 
suspended  by  the  war  ;  that  the  states  were  never  out  of  the 
Union  and  were  always  subject  to  the  constitution.  His  busi¬ 
ness  was  simply  to  restore  civil  authority  in  them  as  soon  as 
they  ceased  to  fight.  His  theory  left  the  question  of  suffrage 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  entitled  to  vote  at  the 
date  of  secession,  and  this  was  the  view  of  his  cabinet.  To 
this  policy  President  Johnson  succeeded.  President  Lincoln  a 
short  while  before  his  death  had  caused  a  bill  to  be  prepared 
for  the  reconstruction  of  North  Carolina.  This  identical  bill 
was  read  in  the  first  cabinet  meeting  after  his  death  and  was 
the  basis  of  all  of  President  Johnson’s  work.3 

There  was  no  negro  suffrage  in  the  Davis-Wade  plan  of 
reconstruction.  It  had  always  been  a  part  of  the  Sumner  and 
Stevens  plans  ;  but  these  men  were  in  advance  of  their  party. 
The  sentiment  of  Congress,  however,  growing  in  opposition  to 
the  presidential  and  the  Davis-Wade  plans,  became  steadily 
stronger  in  its  approval  of  “  impartial  suffrage  ”  as  a  condition 
of  the  reconstruction  and  reorganization  of  government  in  the 
Southern  states.  In  1867  Stevens  said  : 

1  So  the  Supreme  Court.  Cf.  92  U.  S.  214. 

2  See  North  American  Review ,  cxxiii,  267. 

8  For  the  identity  of  the  views  of  Lincoln  and  Johnson  on  this  subject,  cf. 
McCulloch,  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century,  378  et  seq. 


682 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


White  union  men  are  in  a  minority  in  each  of  those  states.  With 
them  the  blacks  would  act  in  a  body,  form  a  majority,  control  the 
states  and  protect  themselves.  It  would  insure  the  ascendency  of 
the  Union  Party. 

Sumner  favored  negro  suffrage  not  only  in  the  South  but  in 
other  parts  of  the  Union  as  well,  and  he  avowed  as  frankly 
as  Stevens  the  motives  actuating  him.  He  writes  from 
the  Senate  chamber,  April  20,  1867,  to  the  editor  of  the 
Independent : 

You  wish  to  have  the  North  “  reconstructed,”  so  at  least  that  it 
shall  cease  to  deny  the  elective  franchise  on  account  of  color.  But 
you  postpone  the  day  by  insisting  on  the  preliminary  of  a  constitu¬ 
tional  amendment.  I  know  your  vows  to  the  good  cause  ;  but  ask 
you  to  make  haste.  We  cannot  wait.  .  .  .  This  question  must  be 
settled  forthwith  :  in  other  words,  it  must  be  settled  before  the 
presidential  election,  which  is  at  hand.  Our  colored  fellow-citizens 
at  the  South  are  already  electors.  They  will  vote  at  the  presidential 
election.  But  why  should  they  vote  at  the  South,  and  not  at  the 
North?  The  rule  of  justice  is  the  same  for  both.  Their  votes  are 
needed  at  the  North  as  well  as  at  the  South.  There  are  Northern 
states  where  their  votes  can  make  the  good  cause  safe  beyond 
question.  There  are  other  states  where  their  votes  will  be  like  the 
last  preponderant  weight  in  the  nicely  balanced  scales.  Let  our 
colored  fellow-citizens  vote  in  Maryland,  and  that  state,  now  so 
severely  tried,  will  be  fixed  for  human  rights  forever.  Let  them 
vote  in  Pennsylvania,  and  you  will  give  more  than  20,000  votes  to 
the  Republican  cause.  Let  them  vote  in  New  York,  and  the  scales 
which  hang  so  doubtful  will  incline  to  the  Republican  cause.  It  will 
be  the  same  in  Connecticut.  .  .  .  Enfranchisement,  which  is  the 
corollary  and  complement  of  emancipation,  must  be  a  national  act, 
also  proceeding  from  the  national  government,  and  applicable  to  all 
the  states.1 

These  views  were  clear-cut  and  to  the  point,  but  in  1865  the 
party  was  not  yet  ready  to  accept  them.  At  the  meeting  of 
Congress  in  December  of  that  year,  Mr.  Stevens  introduced 
and  had  passed  by  both  House  and  Senate  a  resolution 

1  Works,  IX,  356.  See  also  his  letter  in  the  same  strain  of  October  29,  1865. 
Ibid.,  IX,  500.  The  letter  to  Sumner  from  the  negroes  of  Wilmington,  N.  C., 
April  29,  1S65,  is  the  first  public  expression  of  their  interest  in  the  suffrage. 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  683 

to  provide  for  a  joint  committee  of  fifteen  to  report  on  the 
condition  of  “the  states  which  formed  the  so-called  Con¬ 
federate  States  of  America,”  and  it  was  later  agreed  that  no 
members  should  be  admitted  to  Congress  from  the  late  insur¬ 
rectionary  states  until  the  report  of  this  committee  had  been 
finally  acted  on.1  This  gave  time  for  the  growth  of  the  senti¬ 
ment  favoring  negro  suffrage,  and  the  fourteenth  amendment 
soon  became  an  essential  element  in  the  plan  of  reconstruction 
by  Congress.  The  first  section  was  to  overturn  the  still 
binding  principle  of  the  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  that 
negroes,  even  though  emancipated,  could  never  become  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  Its  other  sections  were  intended  to 
make  it  to  the  interest  of  the  Southern  states  to  allow  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  the  negro,  and  to  encourage  them  to  do  so. 
The  negro  was  made  a  citizen  and  was  guaranteed  the  same  rights 
as  the  white  citizens,  but  the  right  to  vote  was  not  expressly 
granted  to  him.  This  amendment  was  passed  by  the  Senate 
June  8,  1866,  by  a  vote  of  33  to  11,  and  by  the  House,  June 
13,  by  a  vote  of  138  to  36.  It  was  rejected  by  Delaware, 
Kentucky  and  Maryland,  was  not  acted  on  by  California,  and 
was  rejected  by  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,  Louisiana, 
Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Texas  and  Vir¬ 
ginia,  at  their  legislative  sessions  between  November  9,  1866, 
and  February  6,  1867. 

Had  the  Southern  states  acted  more  prudently  here,  it  is 
possible  that  many  of  the  evils  which  followed  might  have  been 
avoided  in  part,  and  negro  suffrage  itself  might  have  been 
introduced  not  abruptly,  but  by  degrees.  But  it  was  not 
natural  for  them  to  act  otherwise  than  as  they  did,  and  the 
rejection  of  the  amendment  showed  the  utter  impossibility  of 
getting  the  ratification  of  the  necessary  three-fourths  of  the 
states  so  long  as  the  Southern  states  remained  in  statu  quo. 
It  forced  Congress  to  choose  between  the  presidential  policy 
and  negro  suffrage. 

In  February,  1867,  an  official  effort,  endorsed  by  the  presi¬ 
dent,  was  made  to  induce  the  Southern  legislatures  to  propose 
1  See  Henry  Wilson,  History  of  Reconstruction. 


684 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


an  amendment  of  their  own.  The  plan  included  the  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  constitution  of  each  state  by  giving  the  suffrage 
to  all  male  citizens  who  could  read  and  write  and  who 
owned  taxable  property  worth  $250.  The  amendment  was 
offered  in  the  legislatures  of  North  Carolina  and  Alabama. 
Their  refusal  to  consider  it  put  an  end  to  the  effort.  Besides 
this,  the  Vagrancy  Laws  and  Black  Codes  had  irritated  many 
honest  Northern  men,  who  did  not  understand  the  situation 
and  thought  that  an  effort  was  making  to  reenslave  the  negro. 
The  rank  and  file  of  the  party  were  now  fast  coming  to  the 
position  which  Stevens  and  Sumner  had  long  held. 

Congress  then  went  on  with  the  work  of  reconstruction. 
December  13,  1 866,  Stevens  had  introduced  a  bill  to  recon¬ 
struct  the  government  of  North  Carolina  in  which  suffrage  was 
given  to  males  able  to  read  and  write.  This  never  became 
law  ;  but  instead  a  general  Reconstruction  Act  was  passed, 
March  2,  1867.  It  declared  the  government  of  the  Southern 
states  provisional  only  until,  among  other  conditions,  the  four¬ 
teenth  amendment  should  be  ratified,  and  new  constitutions 
should  be  adopted,  framed  by  “  delegates  elected  by  the  male 
citizens  of  said  state,  twenty-one  years  old  and  upward,  of 
whatever  race,  color  or  previous  condition.”  Under  this  act 
Alabama  in  1867,  and  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Florida,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas  and  Arkansas  in  1 868, 
held  conventions  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the 
Reconstruction  Act.  These  conventions,  where,  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Southern  states,  negroes  sat  in  the 
same  legislative  halls  with  white  men,  framed  constitutions 
providing  for  impartial  suffrage  and  ratified  the  fourteenth 
amendment.  It  was  proclaimed  July  28,  1868. 

The  fourteenth  amendment  had  only  sought  to  stimulate  the 
states  to  grant  the  suffrage  to  the  negro.  The  fifteenth  amend¬ 
ment  deprived  the  states  of  the  power  to  deny  him  the  suffrage. 
It  was  proposed  by  Congress  February  26,  1869  ;  passed  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  39  to  13,  and  the  House  by  144  to  44; 
was  not  acted  on  by  Tennessee ;  was  rejected  by  California, 
Delaware,  Kentucky,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  Oregon,  and 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


685 


by  New  York,  which  first  ratified  and  then  rescinded  her 
ratification ;  was  finally  ratified  by  twenty-nine  states ;  and 
was  declared  in  force  March  30,  1870.1  Negro  suffrage  thus 
became  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  nation.  President 
Grant,  in  announcing  its  ratification  to  Congress,  spoke  of 
it  as  “a  measure  which  makes  at  once  four  millions  of 
people  voters.”  This,  however,  was  not  the  case  ;  the  negro 
had  been  a  voter  in  the  South  since  1867.  His  voting  had 
been  made  a  prerequisite  to  the  readmission  of  the  late 
insurrectionary  states  into  the  Union.  His  ballot  had  helped 
to  choose  the  legislators  who  voted  to  adopt  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  amendments.  He  was  permitted  (strangely 
enough)  to  assist  in  making  the  very  law  under  which  he 
was  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage ! 

Justice  Hunt,  in  the  case  of  United  States  vs.  Reese,  has 
given  what  may  be  termed  the  personal  reasons  for  the 
existence  of  the  fifteenth  amendment :  (1)  That  the  franchise 
would  benefit  the  colored  race  by  giving  them  importance, 
securing  to  them  respect,  protecting  them  against  unfriendly 
action  or  legislation ;  and  (2)  that  its  exercise  would  be 
to  them  an  educational  process  of  the  highest  importance, 
not  only  inciting  them  to  prepare  themselves  for  the  duties 
of  citizenship,  but  accustoming  them  to  the  practical  per¬ 
formance  of  such  duties.2  To  these  reasons  Judge  Cooley 
adds  what  he  calls  public  grounds:  (1)  That  unless  the 
ballot  had  been  given  to  the  freedmen,  the  government  of 
the  Southern  states  must  for  a  considerable  time  have  been 
in  the  hands  of  those  lately  in  rebellion,  who  might  be  expected 
not  to  cooperate  in  government  heartily  with  those  from  whom 
they  had  tried  to  break  away  ;  and  (2)  that  the  existence 
in  a  political  community  of  a  great  body  of  citizens  against 

1  It  is  by  no  means  true  to  say  that  this  amendment  was  repudiated  by 
the  whole  body  of  the  Southern  whites.  In  1869  the  white  people  of  Mississippi 
voted  unanimously  in  favor  of  its  ratification;  for  they  believed  that  when  the 
negro  was  once  made  a  free  man,  a  property-holder  and  a  taxpayer,  he  could  not 
be  excluded  from  the  remaining  privilege  and  duty  of  a  citizen,  the  right  and 
obligation  to  vote.  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar,  in  North  A?nerican  Review,  cxxviii,  231. 

2  92  U.  S.  214,  217. 


686 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


whom  the  laws  discriminate  in  a  particular  which  makes  the 
discrimination  a  stigma  and  a  disgrace,  must  always  be  an 
occasion  of  discontent,  disorder  and  danger.1 

IV.  Negro  Rule  and  its  Results. 

* 

When  the  war  ended  and  the  negro  and  his  quondam  master 
returned  to  their  old  homes,  there  was  in  most  cases  a  quiet 
acquiescence  in  the  new  order  of  things.  The  negro,  thanks 
to  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  servitude,  was  docile,  and  was 
not  in  many  cases  disposed  to  put  himself  forward  beyond  the 
sphere  in  which  he  had  been  accustomed  to  move.  His  great¬ 
est  ambition  was  manifested  in  his  new  desire  for  churches  and 
schools.  So  natural  and  proper  did  this  seem,  that  the  old 
planter,  on  reorganizing  his  estate,  was  willing  to  assume  in  the 
contract  the  obligation  to  maintain  these  institutions.  But 
this  fraternal  relation  was  changed  upon  the  acquisition  of  the 
ballot  by  the  negro.  The  national  Congress  might  make  these 
freedmen  voters,  but  it  could  not  make  them  intelligent  voters 
They  became  the  prey  of  adventurers.  Agents  of  the  Freed 
man’s  Bureau,  military  officers,  retired  soldiers  from  negrc 
regiments,  small  traders  in  articles  of  negro  luxury,  —  all  thai 
class  of  adventurers  who  are  summed  up  in  the  meaning  wore 
“carpet-bagger,”  began  to  swarm  over  the  South.  The  Unior 
League  and  the  Loyal  League  were  organized,  and  the  cry  o 
“forty  acres  and  a  mule”  was  abroad  in  the  land.  Fron 
pulpit  and  platform,  from  press  and  teacher’s  desk  the  negrtl 
was  taught  to  hate  his  late  master  as  the  worst  enemy  of  hi; 
race. 

The  natural  and  inevitable  results  were  soon  apparent.  Th 
negroes  hung  together  as  one  man  and  were  completely  sub 
servient  to  the  will  of  the  demagogue,  “  carpetbagger  ”  o 
“  scallawag,”  as  the  case  might  be.  The  Southern  whites  hat 
been  disfranchised ;  the  adventurers  then  got  the  big  offices 
the  negroes  got  the  little  ones.  In  November,  1874,  there  wer 
in  South  Carolina  alone  two  hundred  negro  trial  justices  wh 

1  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  264,  265. 


NTo.  4.]  NEGRO  SNEER  AGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


687 


:ould  neither  read  nor  write.  There  were  negro  school  com- 
nissioners  equally  ignorant  at  a  thousand  a  year ;  while  negro 
uries,  deciding  delicate  points  of  legal  evidence,  settled  ques- 
ions  involving  the  lives  and  property  of  their  late  masters. 
Property,  which  had  to  bear  the  burden  of  taxation,  had  no 
mice ;  for  the  colored  man  had  no  property  and  the  business  of 
he  carpet-bagger  was  office-holding.  Taxes  were  levied  ruin- 
rnsly ;  money  was  appropriated  with  a  lavish  hand.  The 
listory  of  one  state  is  the  history  of  all. 

The  public  debt  of  Alabama  was  increased  between  1868  and 
874  from  $8,356,083.51  to  $25,503,593.30.  A  large  part  of 
his  went  for  illegitimate  expenses  of  the  legislature  ;  much 
nore  was  in  the  form  of  help  to  railroads;  much  went  into  the 
lands  of  legislators  and  officers  ;  little  was  returned  to  the 
•eople  in  any  form.  In  1871  the  Louisiana  legislature  made 
n  over-issue  of  state  warrants  to  the  extent  of  $200,000 ; 
ome  of  these  were  sold  at  two  and  a  half  cents  on  the 
ollar  and  redeemed  at  par.  In  1873  the  tax  levy  in  New 
Means  was  three  per  cent,  and  four  and  a  half  years  of 
Republican  rule  cost  Louisiana  106  millions.  Clark  County, 
Arkansas,  was  left  with  a  debt  of  $300,000  and  $500  worth  of 
nprovements  to  show  for  it  ;  Chicot  County  spent  $400,000 
nth  nothing  in  return  ;  and  Pulaski  County  a  million.  County 
nd  school  scrip  was  worth  ten  to  thirty  cents  on  the  dollar, 
nd  state  scrip  with  five  per  cent  interest  brought  only  twenty- 
ve  cents.  The  debt  of  Tennessee  for  railroads  and  turnpikes 
'as  increased  by  $16,000,000,  and  these  bonds  with  six  per 
snt  interest  were  sold  at  from  seventeen  to  forty  cents  on 
ie  dollar ;  state  bonds  were  practically  valueless.  In  Nash- 
ille,  when  there  was  no  currency  in  the  treasury,  checks 
ere  drawn,  often  in  the  name  of  fictitious  persons,  made 
lyable  to  bearer,  and  sold  by  the  ring  to  note-shavers  for  what 
ley  would  bring.  Warrants  on  the  Texas  treasury  brought 
'rty-five  cents.  In  1869  the  state  tax  on  real  estate  in  Missis- 
ppi  was  ten  cents  on  the  hundred;  in  1874  it  was  $1.40. 
i  i860  the  expenses  of  the  Florida  legislature  were  $17,000; 

1  1869  they  were  $67,000.  Bonds  to  the  amount  of  $4,000,- 
' 


688  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 

ooo,  which  this  state  issued  to  subsidize  railroads,  were  mar¬ 
keted  at  fifty  cents.  The  debt  of  Georgia  was  increased 
$13,000,000  during  the  two  years  of  Governor  Bullock.  In 
1868  the  legislature  of  North  Carolina  in  less  than  four  months 
authorized  the  issue  of  more  than  $25,000,000  in  bonds,  princi¬ 
pally  for  railroads  ;  $14,000,000  were  issued,  and  sold  at  from 
nine  to  forty-five  cents  on  the  dollar ;  but  not  a  mile  of  road 
was  built.  The  counties  began  to  exploit  their  credit  in  the 
same  way,  and  some  of  the  wealthier  had  their  scrip  hawked 
about  at  ten  cents  on  the  dollar.1 

But  it  was  in  South  Carolina  that  this  flood  of  iniquity 
reached  its  highest.  Mr.  James  S.  Pike,  a  Republican  and  an 
original  Abolitionist,  writing  the  history  of  reconstruction  ir 
South  Carolina  from  what  he  saw  and  heard  in  the  South  Caro 
lina  legislature  in  February  and  March,  1873,  divides  the  fraud: 
committed,  or  in  operation,  into  eight  classes  :  (1)  Those  relat 
ing  to  the  state  debt  ;  (2)  frauds  in  the  purchase  of  lands  fo 
the  freedmen  ;  (3)  railroad  frauds  ;  (4)  election  frauds  ;  (5 
frauds  practiced  in  the  redemption  of  the  notes  of  the  Banl 
of  South  Carolina  ;  (6)  census  fraud  ;  (7)  fraud  in  furnishing 
the  legislative  chamber  ;  (8)  general  legislative  corruption 
The  seventh  and  eighth  classes  seem  to  have  been  among  th 
most  fruitful  sources  of  evil.  The  joint  investigating  con 
mittee  appointed  in  1877  found  that  almost  everything  use 
by  civilized  man  had  been  charged  up  to  the  state,  under  th 
expansive  term  “supplies.”  The  vouchers  for  these  supplic 
include  English  tapestry,  Brussels  carpeting,  English  velvt 
door  mats,  English  oilcloths,  French  velvets,  silk  damask,  Iris 
linens,  billiard-tablecloths,  woolen  blankets,  ladies’  hoods,  ril 
bons,  crepe,  scissors,  skirt  braid  and  pins,  toothbrushes,  hool 
and  eyes,  boulevard  skirts,  bustles,  chignons,  palpitator 
garters,  chemises,  parasols,  gold  watches  and  chains,  go 
jewelry,  diamond  rings,  diamond  pins,  knives  and  forks,  pock 
pistols,  horses,  mules,  harness,  buggies  and  carriages.  Senat 
Hampton  says  that  this  is  hardly  a  tenth  part  of  the  list.2 

1  Why  the  Solid  South  ?  passim. 

2  Wade  Hampton  in  The  Forum,  June,  1888. 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


689 


The  negro  did  not  inaugurate  this  rdgime.  In  the  first  place, 
after  he  obtained  the  ballot,  he  was  deserted  in  many  cases  by 
his  late  master,  who  should  have  been  his  guide  and  friend. 
He  was  thus  left  to  learn  the  lesson  of  political  life  the  best 
he  could.  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  the  adventurers  came 
in.  They  were  in  most  cases  unidentified  with  the  community 
in  interest,  habit  or  sympathy.  They  found  the  negro  adrift, 
captured  him,  used  him  for  their  own  purposes  and  divided  the 
spoils  with  him. 

In  some  cases  the  negro  himself  began  to  revolt  from  this 
new  slavery  to  men  “who  exercised  power  without  right  or 
merit,  and  amassed  wealth  without  labor,”  who  controlled  his 
;  vote  in  the  interest  of  a  single  party,  and  taught  him  that  to 
1  scratch  a  name  on  that  party’s  ticket  was  a  sin  little  short  of 
damnation.  Hon.  H.  R.  Revels,  who  represented  Mississippi 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  wrote  President  Grant  : 

Since  reconstruction,  the  masses  of  my  people  have  been,  as  it 
were,  enslaved  in  mind  to  unprincipled  adventurers,  who,  caring 
nothing  for  the  country,  were  willing  to  stoop  to  anything,  no  matter 
h  >w  infamous,  to  secure  power  to  themselves  and  perpetuate  it.  My 
people  are  naturally  Republicans,  but,  as  they  grow  older  in  freedom, 
so  do  they  grow  in  wisdom.  A  great  portion  of  them  have  learned 
that  they  are  being  used  as  mere  tools,  and,  as  in  the  late  elections 
[in  Mississippi],  not  being  able  to  correct  the  existing  evil  among 
themselves,  they  determined  by  casting  their  ballots  against  these 
unprincipled  adventurers  to  overthrow  them.1 
I 

It  was  largely  because  of  the  lack  of  education  and  political 
experience  that  the  negro  thus  became  the  tool  and  instru¬ 
ment  of  all  sorts  of  frauds.  Then  began  in  the  South  the  era 
of  the  theft  of  ballot-boxes,  stuffing  of  ballot-boxes,  certification, 
exchanging,  removing  of  polls  to  unknown  or  unfrequented 
places,  counting  out,  doctoring,  repeating,  erasing  names  from 
registration  books,  illegal  arrests  before  the  day  of  election 
and  throwing  out  returns.  Whatever  lessons  the  Democrats 
may  have  learned  later  in  these  matters,  their  teaching  came 
from  the  early  reconstruction  days.  These  things  were  unknown 
1  See  T.  A.  Hendricks  in  North  American  Review,  cxxviii,  343. 


690  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 

before  the  war.  The  reconstructionist  was  hoist  by  his  own 
petard. 

The  adventurers  sowed  the  seeds  of  their  own  destruction  in 
another  way.  They  fused  the  white  elements  into  a  single 
body.  The  old  antithesis  of  Whiggery  and  Democracy  was 
still  strong  in  the  South ;  the  opposition  between  original 
secessionist  and  unionist  had  not  disappeared,  and  the  lines  of 
division  were  clear  until  the  pressure  of  reconstruction  was 
felt.  Then  old  enmities  were  lost  in  the  struggle  against  the 
new  enemy.  White  men  have  made  the  South  “solid,”  not  for 
Democracy,  but  against  the  negro.  Southern  men  are  Demo¬ 
crats  because  an  ethnic  whip  is  continually  cracked  over  their 
shoulders.  During  the  campaign  of  1888  a  negro  paper  of 
Goldsboro,  N.  C.,  said  that  any  negro  who  voted  the  Democratic 
ticket  should  be  struck  thirty  lashes.  “  In  the  name  of  high 
heaven,  how  many  lashes  does  the  white  man  who  votes  the 
Republican  ticket  deserve  ?  ”  was  the  Democratic  answer. 

V.  The  Present  Status  of  Negro  Suffrage. 

The  year  1876  marks  the  end  of  reconstruction.  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  Georgia  and  Tennessee  were  redeemed  from 
negro  rule  in  1870  ;  Texas  in  1873  ;  Alabama  and  Arkansas  in 
1874;  Mississippi  in  1875;  and  the  centennial  year  of  Ameri¬ 
can  independence  saw  order  restored  in  South  Carolina,  Florida 
and  Louisiana.  Since  then  these  states  have  been  Demo¬ 
cratic.  We  have  now  to  see  what  action  has  been  taken  b) 
them  in  the  matter  of  limiting  the  franchise. 

There  have  been  in  most  of  the  Southern  states  two  consti 
tutions  since  the  war.  The  first  set  were  the  work  of  th< 
reconstructionists  ;  the  latter  were  the  work  of  the  nativi 
whites.  The  first  gave  the  suffrage  to  all  adult  males  excep 
such  as  were  disfranchised  for  crime  or  because  of  menta 
incapacity  ;  but  many  classes  of  Confederates  were  disfran 
chised  by  a  stringent  test  oath,  and  the  votes  of  those  wh 
could  take  the  oath  were  often  thrown  out  in  the  unceremc 
nious  fashion  already  referred  to.  The  constitution  of  Georgi 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


69I 


refused  the  suffrage  to  any  one  who  had  not  paid  his  taxes, 
and  the  constitution  of  Florida  provided  for  an  educational 
qualification  after  1880.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Mississippi 
constitution  of  1868  forbade  that  any  property  or  educational 
qualification  for  suffrage  should  be  demanded  of  her  citizens 
prior  to  1885.  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,  Louisi¬ 
ana,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina  required 
a  registration  of  voters  of  some  kind,  but  very  lax,  and  of  little 
importance.  No  registration  was  required  in  Texas  ;  nor  did 
Arkansas  and  Texas  require  it  under  their  revised  constitutions 
of  1874  and  1876  respectively. 

Various  miscellaneous  provisions  which  have  been  made 
from  time  to  time  in  different  states  regulating  the  ballot,  but 
which  can  in  no  wise  be  construed  as  a  limitation  on  the  right 
of  the  negro,  are  omitted  from  consideration  here.  That  a 
practical  limitation  may  be  the  result  of  legislation  to  which, 
on  the  face  of  it,  no  possible  odium  can  attach,  may  be 
seen  in  the  working  of  the  rule  by  which  all  the  Southern 
states  —  probably  most  of  the  United  States  —  disfranchise 
persons  guilty  of  infamous  crimes.  This  term  covers  anything 
from  murder  to  petit  larceny.  In  the  North  Carolina  guberna¬ 
torial  election  in  1888,  the  majority  for  Fowle,  the  Democratic 
candidate,  was  only  14,450  over  Dockery,  his  Republican 
opponent.  We  have  no  exact  figures  of  the  numbers  disfran¬ 
chised  as  criminals  in  North  Carolina,  but  we  can  approximate 
it  from  a  publication  of  the  Democratic  state  executive  com¬ 
mittee  in  1888.  This  publication  contains  lists  of  ex-convicts 
from  fifty-eight  of  the  ninety-six  counties.  In  nine  of  these 
fifty-eight  the  color  of  the  ex-convicts  is  not  specified.  In  the 
other  forty-nine  there  are  registered  2969  colored  ex-convicts. 
If  we  assume  that  this  represents  half  of  the  convict  popula¬ 
tion  of  color,  the  number  of  colored  voters  is  diminished 
between  five  and  six  thousand.  This  is  obviously  an  important 
fact  in  a  close  state,  where  the  white  vote  is  slightly  in  the 
majority,  but  which  might,  for  temporary  causes,  be  in  danger 
of  falling  under  negro  rule.  The  law  in  this  case  is  doubtless 
abused  at  times  in  the  interest  of  the  ruling  race. 


692 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


The  methods  through  which  it  is  sought  legally  to  nullify  and 
restrict  the  negro  vote  may  be  classified  under  four  principal 
divisions:  1.  By  centralization;  2.  By  the  requirement  that 
taxes  be  paid  before  voting;  3.  By  great  complexity  in  the 
election  laws,  which  serves  indirectly  as  an  educational  test ; 
4.  By  an  express  educational  qualification. 

1.  In  North  Carolina  negro  majorities  are  overcome  by  cen¬ 

tralization.  The  state  as  a  whole  is  safely  Democratic.  Accord¬ 
ingly  the  legislature  elects  the  justices  of  the  peace  for  all  the 
counties,  and  these  justices  in  turn  elect  the  boards  of  county 
commissioners.  The  other  county  officers  are  chosen  by  the 
electors.  This  system  is  anything  but  democratic,  but  it  results 
in  keeping  the  county  funds  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  more 
conservative  and  better  element  of  the  population.  It  is  dis¬ 
pleasing  to  the  western  counties,  where  there  is  a  large  white 
majority,  but  they  bear  it  for  the  sake  of  preserving  the  eastern 
part  of  the  state  from  a  return  of  reconstruction  conditions. 
There  is  a  somewhat  similar  plan  of  local  government  in 
Louisiana.  * 

2.  Six  states  have  tried  the  requirement  of  taxes.  In  Vir¬ 
ginia  a  constitutional  amendment  in  1876  required  the  payment 
of  a  poll  tax  as  a  prerequisite  to  voting,  but  this  was  repealed 
in  1881-82.  It  was  found  to  stimulate  wholesale  bribery  in 
elections.  That  party  which  had  the  most  money  could  pay  the 
most  capitation  taxes  and  secure  the  most  votes.  Through  the 
aid  of  rich  Republicans  in  the  North  the  taxes  of  the  negroes 
were  more  generally  paid  than  those  of  the  whites. 

Arkansas  adopted  an  amendment  to  her  constitution  in  1892 
requiring  a  poll-tax  receipt  as  a  prerequisite  to  voting.  This 
has  simplified  the  matter  in  that  state.  The  law  works  well, 
and  the  negro  vote  is  said  to  be  practically  eliminated.  How 
it  would  be  if  the  whites  should  be  divided,  as  in  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  yet  remains  to  be  seen.  A  poll  tax  was  also  required  in 
Florida  under  the  constitution  of  1885,  and  in  Mississippi 
under  that  of  1890.  « 

The  experience  of  Tennessee  in  the  matter  of  negro  suffrage 
and  the  tax  requirement  has  been  varied.  The  strong  minority 


No.  4-„ 


NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


693 


which  opposed  negro  suffrage  in  the  convention  of  1870, 
though  they  failed  in  their  main  purpose,  nevertheless  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  securing  a  requirement  of  poll  tax.  But  this  proved 
unsatisfactory.  In  1871  a  law  was  passed  under  which  no  proof 
of  payment  for  the  year  1872  was  to  be  required.  In  1873  the 
tax  requirement  was  repealed  entirely.  At  the  extra  session 
of  1890  the  poll  tax  qualification  was  again  enacted,  and  in 
1891  this  law  was  so  amended  that  the  original  poll-tax  receipt, 
or  a  duly  certified  duplicate,  or  an  affidavit  that  the  voter  had 
paid  his  poll  tax  and  the  receipt  “is  lost  or  misplaced,”  was 
required  as  preliminary  to  voting.  This  law  also  bars  out  the 
person  who  disposes  of  his  receipt  for  any  valuable  consideration. 

Georgia  seems  to  have  been  more  successful  in  the  require¬ 
ment  of  taxes  than  any  other  state.  This  was  put  into  the 
constitution  in  1789,  and  has  been  uniformly  maintained  since 
then.  In  1887  Senator  Colquitt  said  in  The  Forum  that  the 
tax  qualification  had  operated  with  important  effect  on  the 
colored  voters,  and  that  the  number  of  defaulting  colored  tax¬ 
payers  was  becoming  larger  each  year.  ^ 

3.  The  method  most  in  favor  in  the  South  for  limiting  the 
negro  vote  is  through  intricate  registration  and  election  laws. 
These  vary  in  different  states,  and  have  been  changed  from 
time  to  time  in  the  same  state.  They  may  be  divided  roughly 
into  two  classes,  as  the  so-called  Australian  system  prevails 
or  not.  Some  form  of  this  system  obtains  in  Alabama,  Arkan¬ 
sas,  Mississippi,  Tennessee  and  Virginia.  It  does  not  obtain 
in  Florida,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  North  Carolina,  South  Caro¬ 
lina  and  Texas.  The  laws  of  these  latter  states  represent  the 
older  ideas,  are  less  successful  and  less  just  than  the  others, 
and  little  can  be  said  in  their  defense.  But,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  North  Carolina  partly  escapes  from  the  trouble  by  cen¬ 
tralization  ;  Georgia  and  Florida  have  a  tax  requirement ;  there 
is  hardly  a  negro  problem  in  Texas,  except  in  a  few  of  the 
eastern  counties ;  and  Louisiana  is  now  striving  for  a  new  law 
requiring  both  taxes  and  education.  It  is  in  South  Carolina, 
and  to  a  less  extent  in  Florida  and  Virginia,  that  registration 
is  depended  on  to  solve  the  difficulty. 


694 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


Under  the  present  law  in  Florida  the  books  for  registration 
must  be  closed  on  the  second  Saturday  in  September.  Each 
elector,  on  being  registered,  is  furnished  with  a  certificate, 
numbered  in  each  district  consecutively.  This  must  “  con¬ 
tain  a  statement  of  the  full  name,  age,  color,  height,  occupation, 
place  of  residence  and  date  of  registration  as  entered  in  the 
registration  books,  which  certificate  shall  be  signed  by  the 
registration  officer.”  No  person  is  allowed  to  vote  save  in 
the  district  in  which  he  is  registered, 

nor  shall  any  person  whose  name  does  not  appear  upon  the  registra¬ 
tion  books  be  allowed  to  vote  unless  he  produces  and  exhibits  his 
certificate  of  registration  to  the  managers  of  election ;  and  he  shall 
not  then  be  allowed  to  vote  unless  the  certificate  of  registration 
which  he  exhibits  shall  satisfactorily  identify  him  to  the  managers 
of  the  election. 

Certificates  can  be  renewed  when  defaced  by  surrendering 
the  old,  or  when  lost,  by  establishing  proof  of  loss.  To  do 
this  the  voter  must  state  the  “  facts  of  his  former  registration 
and  of  such  loss,  and  that  he  has  not  sold,  bartered  or  parted 
with  his  certificate  for  any  pecuniary  or  other  valuable  consid¬ 
eration.”  If  an  elector  removes  from  one  residence  to  another 
in  the  same  district,  or  from  one  district  to  another  in  the  same 
county,  he  is  to  notify  the  supervisor  of  registration,  surrender 
his  certificate  and  receive  a  certificate  of  transfer  of  registration, 
and  without  this  certificate  of  transfer  he  cannot  vote.  If  an 
excess  of  votes  is  found,  the  excess  over  the  registered  number 
of  voters  is  to  be  taken  out  and  destroyed. 

In  South  Carolina,  where  the  evil  of  negro  numbers  is 
greatest,  the  laws  are  most  complex.  Under  the  statutes  of 
1882  there  is  for  each  office  a  special  ballot,  the  size  and  char¬ 
acter  of  which  are  minutely  prescribed.  There  are  eight  ballot 
boxes,  and  the  office  for  which  each  is  intended  is  written  on 
it ;  these  names  are  to  be  read  aloud  to  the  elector,  at  his 
request,  by  the  managers  ;  no  one  else  can  speak  to  him  while 
he  is  in  the  polling  room ;  the  ballot  must  be  inserted  by  hi; 
own  hand,  and  no  ballot  is  counted  if  found  in  the  wrong  box 
If  more  ballots  are  found  in  the  box  than  there  are  names  or 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


695 


the  poll  list,  the  ballots  are  returned  to  the  box,  thoroughly 
mixed  together,  and  one  of  the  managers  or  the  clerk  withdraws 
from  the  box  and  immediately  destroys  the  excess  of  the  ballots 
over  the  number  of  voters.  Registration  is  required  and  is 
confined  to  three  days.  The  registration  books  are  closed  on 
the  first  day  of  July.  A  certificate  of  registration  is  also 
required,  and  the  person  can  vote  only  when  this  certificate 
is  produced.  If  the  elector  removes  from  one  residence  to 
another  in  the  same  precinct,  he  must  surrender  the  old  certifi¬ 
cate  and  get  a  new  one.  This  has  to  be  done  also  when  he 
removes  from  one  precinct  to  another,  or  from  one  county 
to  another.  By  a  law  passed  in  1883,  if  a  certificate  is  lost, 
it  may  be  replaced,  provided  it  has  not  been  disposed  of  for 
any  valuable  consideration.  In  1885,  when  a  new  law  estab¬ 
lished  some  new  polling  places,  changed  the  locality  of  the 
old  ones,  etc.t  the  old  certificates  had  to  be  surrendered  and 
new  ones  obtained. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  complexities  of  these  laws  are 
enough  to  confuse  a  mind  better  trained  than  that  of  the 
average  negro.  To  him  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  beyond 
comprehension.  It  is  said  that  as  soon  as  the  ignorant  voters 
began  to  understand  the  arrangement  of  the  boxes,  the  boxes 
were  shuffled,  and  many  votes  were  lost  before  the  order  was 
again  unraveled.  It  will  be  seen,  also,  that  the  registration 
books  are  closed  on  the  first  of  July,  while  the  voter  has  to 
present  his  registration  certificate  on  voting  day.  Now,  a 
negro  is  not  used  to  preserving  papers ;  it  frequently  happens, 
therefore,  that  the  certificates  are  lost  or  worn  out,  and  they 
can  be  renewed  only  under  certain  limitations.  It  is  said  that 
in  a  certain  section  the  negroes  took  their  certificates  to  their 
preacher  for  safe  keeping ;  he  promised  to  put  them  into  a  box 
and  preserve  them  until  needed.  He  put  them  into  the  box, 
but  a  few  days  before  election  the  Democrats  hired  him  to  go 
over  to  Georgia  and  take  this  box  with  him.  Another  story  is 
told,  but  I  am  unable  to  vouch  for  its  truth.  Some  years  ago 
Barnum  appeared  in  South  Carolina  with  his  circus.  Under 
instruction  from  the  Democrats  he  advertised  that  the  admission 


6g6 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


fee  was  fifty  cents  or  a  registration  certificate.  The  negroes, 
acting  on  the  theory  that  a  circus  to-day  is  better  than  a  vote 
next  week,  handed  over  their  certificates  and  saw  the  show. 
When  election  day  came,  the  fact  that  they  had  registered  was 
disputed  by  no  one,  but  they  could  not  prove  that  the  certifi¬ 
cates  had  been  lost,  and  hence  they  were  legally  disfranchised. 

The  laws  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Mississippi,  Tennessee  and, 
in  part,  Virginia,  embody  the  best  elements  of  the  reform 
ballot  law  in  the  South.  They  all  reproduce  essential  features 
of  the  Australian  system  and  these  provisions  act  more  or  less 
distinctly  as  an  educational  qualification. 

In  1893,  Alabama  enacted  what  is  known  as  the  Sayre  Elec¬ 
tion  Law.  It  was  framed  in  answer  to  a  demand  that  some 
method  be  devised  by  which  the  necessity  of  suppressing  any  part 
of  the  vote  might  be  obviated  ;  it  disfranchises  no  one,  and  it  is 
rather  significant  that  the  bitterest  opposition  to  it  has  come 
from  the  Populists.  It  is  modeled  largely  on  the  election  laws 
which  have  been  recently  enacted  in  other  Southern  states.  The 
registration  feature  comes  from  Tennessee,  while  many  parts 
are  taken  from  the  new  Arkansas  law.  In  Alabama  registra¬ 
tion  can  be  made  only  in  May,  and  within  the  precinct  or  ward 
where  the  vote  is  to  be  cast.  There  is  one  ticket  for  all  can¬ 
didates,  and  the  names  are  arranged  alphabetically,  without 
distinction  of  party,  under  the  respective  offices.  The  voter 
enters  the  booth  and  marks  his  ballot  without  assistance  ;  if 
unable  to  do  this,  he  may  call  one  of  the  managers  of  election 
to  his  aid.  No  time  longer  than  five  minutes  is  allowed  for 
voting,  and  an  ignorant  voter  can  tell  the  assistant  the  way  he 
wishes  to  vote  only  when  all  others  have  withdrawn  from  the 
polling  place.  In  addition  to  this,  the  voter  has  in  all  cases 
to  show  his  certificate  of  registration.  The  provision  in  regard 
to  ignorant  voters  has  been  variously  interpreted  in  different 
localities.  In  some  cases  the  assistant  is  allowed  to  mark  the 
ballot  after  the  voter  has  expressed  merely  his  party  prefer¬ 
ence  ;  in  other  cases  the  voter  is  required  to  name  each  person 
for  whom  he  wishes  to  vote.  The  possibilities  of  the  latter 
requirement  as  an  intelligence  test  are  obvious. 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


697 


The  Arkansas  law  of  1891  is  very  much  like  that  of  Alabama, 
and  was  one  of  the  originals  on  which  the  latter  was  based.  It 
requires  no  registration,  but  a  poll-tax  receipt  instead.  The 
names  of  all  candidates  are  printed  on  a  general  ticket  without 
regard  to  party  or  alphabetical  order,  and  these  tickets  are 
numbered  as  voted.  They  can  be  obtained  only  from  the 
judges  of  election  within  the  polling  place.  The  voter  is  then 
required  to  retire  to  a  booth,  and  is  allowed  five  minutes  to  pre¬ 
pare  his  vote  by  scratching,  erasing  or  crossing  out  all  names 
not  wanted.  No  one  can  help  him  to  do  this  except  the  judges 
of  election,  who  are  of  different  political  parties.  If  necessary, 
the  ignorant  voter  can  call  two  of  these  to  his  assistance,  and 
they  will  prepare  his  ballot  for  him  ;  but  before  he  is  allowed  to 
tell  them  how  he  wishes  to  vote  it  is  necessary  that  all  electors, 
including  those  in  the  booths,  retire  from  the  polling  room.  In 
precincts  where  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  voters  the 
races  are  required  to  vote  alternately.  It  may  happen  that  in 
large  negro  precincts  some  are  excluded  for  lack  of  time,  but 
in  no  other  way  can  hardship  come  to  the  negro.  Some  ten  or 
twelve  counties  in  the  southern  and  eastern  part  of  the  state 
gave  considerable  trouble  because  of  their  negro  population. 
But  this  has  been  settled  by  the  new  law.  An  Arkansas 
official  says  that  it  “virtually  lifts  from  us  the  black  cloud  of 
negro  domination.”  And  again  he  says  :  “The  law  works 
ismoothly,  quietly,  satisfactorily,  beautifully,  and  I  pray  God 
every  Southern  state  may  soon  have  one  like  it.” 

Tennessee  has  made  some  advance  toward  the  Australian 
ballot,  but  the  results  are  limited  because  the  law  of  1890  is 
made  applicable  only  to  counties  with  70,000  inhabitants,  and 
to  cities  with  9000.  The  registration  law  of  1890  applies  to 
counties  with  70,000  inhabitants  and  to  “  towns,  cities  and  civil 
districts”  of  2500.  The  registration  certificate  must  tell  the 
name  and  color  of  the  elector,  the  ward  or  district  in  which  he 
resides  and  the  election  in  which  he  is  qualified  to  vote,  and 
must  be  presented  at  the  ballot  box.  The  law  when  put  into 
operation  is  not  essentially  different  from  those  of  Alabama  and 
Arkansas,  except  that  there  is  less  provision  for  the  ignorant  voter. 

El 


698 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


The  registrar  shall  upon  the  demand  of  any  voter  .  .  .  give  to  such 
voter  a  correct  statement  of  the  order  in  which  the  titles  of  the 
various  offices  to  be  filled  stand  upon  the  particular  ballot  furnished 
to  such  voter. 

With  only  this  provision  for  aid  at  the  polls,  and  with  stringent 
tax  and  registration  requirements,  there  is  little  chance  for 
the  ignorant  man. 

To  these  three  states  we  must  add  Virginia,  which  passed 
a  new  ballot  law  in  March,  1894.  The  former  Virginia  law 
was  bad,  having  come  down  from  the  reconstruction  days  of 
1869-70.  The  Walton  Law,  which  went  into  effect  July  1, 
1894,  provides  for  a  blanket  ballot,  containing  the  names  of  all 
the  candidates  to  be  voted  for,  printed  below  the  office  they 
seek.  Booths  are  provided,  but  no  person  can  occupy  one 
more  than  two  and  a  half  minutes  if  other  voters  are  waiting. 
This  law  deals  more  tenderly  with  the  ignorant  voter  than  the 
Tennessee  law.  It  provides  that  a  special  constable  shall  assist 
the  ignorant  voter  by  “  reading  the  names  and  offices  on  the  j 
ballot,  and  pointing  out  to  him  the  name  or  names  he  may  1 
wish  to  strike  out,  or  otherwise  aid  him  in  preparing  his 
ballot.”  From  the  educational  standpoint  this  law  is  a  failure, 
and  the  deficiency  is  only  partly  covered  by  the  heavy  require¬ 
ments  in  the  matter  of  registration  when  the  voter  changes  his 
residence,  and  when  the  limits  of  registration  precincts  are 
changed  or  new  ones  made. 

4.  The  educational  qualification,  eo  nomine,  has  been  tried 
only  to  a  limited  extent.  It  was  provided  in  the  Florida  consti¬ 
tution  of  1868  that  there  should  be  such  a  qualification  after 
1880,  but  the  provision  was  not  carried  out,  and  there  is  nc 
mention  of  it  in  the  constitution  of  1885.  The  reason  for  th( 
general  hesitation  in  making  such  a  qualification  is  not  far  tc 
seek.  It  would  exclude  many  white  Democrats,  and  the  fear 
of  the  loss  of  votes  has  caused  the  party  to  hesitate.  The  onl) 
state  to  appeal  directly  and  successfully  to  the  intelligence  tes' 
has  been  Mississippi.  This  state  also  makes  use  of  the  Aus 
tralian  ballot,  but  this  phase  is  less  important  than  the  educa 
tional  requirement.  The  experience  of  Mississippi  during  th< 


No.  4-]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  699 

reconstruction  period  was  probably  the  stormiest  of  all  the 
Southern  states.  This  was  because  the  negro  population 
was  largely  in  excess  of  the  white,  the  census  of  1870  giving 
444,201  blacks  against  382,896  whites,  and  because  the  legis¬ 
lators  were  not  as  prudent  as  they  might  have  been  in  the 
period  just  following  the  war.  The  state  was  finally  recon¬ 
structed,  and  the  constitution  of  1868  provided  that  no  property 
or  educational  qualification  should  be  required  previous  to  1885. 
But  notwithstanding  these  provisions,  the  white  men  of  the 
state,  by  various  means  which  cannot  be  enumerated  here,  some¬ 
times  illegal  and  harsh,  but  necessary,  as  it  was  thought,  to 
preserve  state  life,  obtained  control  of  affairs,  and  the  negro  vote 
was  largely  suppressed.  As  far  as  practicality  was  concerned 
there  was  no  need  of  any  change  in  the  situation  thus  pro¬ 
duced.  But  the  people  felt  an  earnest  and  growing  desire  to 
devise  a  legal  and  just  system  of  eliminating  the  negro  vote. 
The  constitutional  convention  of  1890,  called  to  settle  this 
matter,  labored  under  one  disadvantage.  By  the  terms  of  the 
Congressional  act  under  which  Mississippi  was  restored  to 
normal  relations  with  the  Union  it  was  provided  that  the 
state’s  constitution  should 

never  be  so  amended  or  changed  as  to  deprive  any  citizen  or  class 
if  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  the  right  to  vote  who  are  entitled 
to  vote  by  the  constitution  herein  recognized,  except  as  a  punishment 
for  such  crimes  as  are  felonies  at  common  law,  whereof  they  shall 
rave  been  duly  convicted  under  laws  equally  applicable  to  all  the 
.nhabitants  of  said  state. 

If  this  act  was  valid,  if  this  condition  remained  binding, 
:here  could  be  no  action  in  the  matter  at  all.  But  the  judiciary 
tommittee  argued  justly  that  no  action  of  Congress  can  deprive 
me  state  of  the  equality  it  enjoys  with  other  states  under  the 
Federal  Constitution.  They  were  then  at  liberty  to  act  in  the 
natter  of  establishing  limitations. 

Many  propositions  were  made,  and  very  serious  consideration 
vas  given  to  one  which  bestowed  the  franchise  on  women, 
subject  to  a  property  qualification  in  addition  to  the  regular 


700 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


qualifications  of  men.  But  this  was  ultimately  abandoned  and 
an  educational  test  was  adopted  in  its  place.  The  new  con- 
stitution  requires  a  residence  of  two  years  in  the  state,  and  one 
in  the  district,  registration  four  months  before  the  election,  the 
payment  of  all  taxes  for  the  last  two  years,  and  further,  that 

on  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  a.d.  1892,  every  elector  shall, 
in  addition  to  the  foregoing  qualifications,  be  able  to  read  any  section 
of  the  constitution  of  this  state  ;  or  he  shall  be  able  to  understand 
the  same  when  read  to  him,  or  give  a  reasonable  interpretation 
thereof. 

There  was  but  one  negro  in  the  convention.  This  was  Isaiah  I 
Thornton  Montgomery,  of  Bolivar  County.  He  had  expressed 
himself  in  favor  of  such  an  amendment  as  this  while  canvassing 
for  election  ;  he  was  elected  by  a  negro  constituency  and  can 
therefore  be  considered  as  representing  their  feelings  on  the 
question.  He  was  a  member  of  the  committee  on  franchise. 
He  favored  the  amendment  while  in  committee  ;  when  it  came 
before  the  house  he  delivered  a  remarkable  speech  in  support  of 
it,  embodying  an  eloquent  plea  for  peace  and  harmony  between 
the  races  —  a  tender  of  the  olive  branch  from  the  black  man  to 
the  white.  The  amendment  was  passed  and  all  parties  have 
acquiesced  in  its  enforcement.  There  is  no  longer  a  “negro  J 
problem”  in  Mississippi.  The  census  of  1890  gives  the  state 
a  white  population  of  544,851,  and  a  negro  population  oi 
744,749.  On  the  usual  proportion  of  one  in  five,  we  have  i 
about  109,000  whites  and  149,000  negroes  of  voting  age 
Mr.  Montgomery  estimates  that  the  law  disfranchises  two 
thirds  of  the  blacks  and  only  one-eleventh  of  the  whites 
In  practice  the  number  of  negroes  disfranchised  is  much  large 
than  this. 

The  Mississippi  law  has  proved  itself,  thus  far,  a  success 
It  remains  to  be  seen  what  the  influence  of  such  a  law  wil 
be  as  a  spur  to  the  negro  in  the  pursuit  of  an  education.  It  i 
usually  claimed  that  such  laws  drive  him  to  greater  effort; 
while  they  do  not  have  the  same  influence  on  the  whites.  Bi 
it  is  possible  that  this  may  be  the  ultimate  solution  of  tb 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 


701 


Southern  problem.  The  Southern  states  are  slowly  but  surely 
forging  ahead  in  matters  of  education.  They  are  improving 
both  the  quantity  and  the  quality  of  their  schools.  If  the 
negro  improves  intellectually  and  becomes  a  better  citizen,  this 
will  in  itself  bring  relief  from  most  of  the  evils  which  the 
Southern  people  have  found  in  negro  suffrage. 

The  experience  of  Mississippi  is  also  beginning  to  make 
itself  felt  in  other  states.  Louisiana  passed  a  single  ballot 
law  in  1882,  under  which  registration  was  required,  and  the 
certificate  of  registration  had  to  be  produced  before  voting,  as 
in  South  Carolina.  Within  the  present  year  a  committee  has 
been  appointed  to  revise  the  section  of  the  state  constitution 
concerning  the  qualifications  of  electors.  This  committee  has 
adopted  an  amendment  which,  after  stating  the  requirements 
in  respect  to  age,  residence,  registration,  etc.,  provides  that  the 
elector 

shall  have  paid  his  poll  tax  for  the  year  next  preceding  the 
election ;  he  shall  be  able  to  read  the  constitution  of  the  state  in  his 
mother  tongue,  or  shall  be  the  bona  fide  owner  of  property,  real  or 
personal,  located  in  this  state  and  assessed  to  him  for  the  year  next 
preceding  the  election  at  a  cash  valuation  of  not  less  than  $200. 

To  summarize :  the  laws  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Mississippi 
and  Tennessee  embody  the  principle  of  education,  and  have 
much  to  commend  them.  These,  together  with  Virginia,  have 
adopted  an  Australian  ballot,  although  the  educational  feature 
has  been  left  out  of  the  Virginia  law.  Georgia,  Florida,  Ar¬ 
kansas,  Mississippi  and  Tennessee  require  taxes.  There  is  little 
in  the  laws  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  Louisiana  and  Texas  to 
commend  them.  Louisiana  is  moving  for  a  reform.  This  will 
probably  come  in  North  Carolina;  for  the  present  law  is  roundly 
denounced  by  Republicans  and  Populists,  particularly  the  regis- 
:ration  feature.  South  Carolina  will  be  driven  to  a  revision  ; 
:or,  having  completely  eliminated  the  negro  from  the  problem, 
'.he  whites  are  now  trying  the  laws  on  each  other.  During 
:he  last  campaign  Senator  Butler  is  reported  to  have  said  that 
f  he  should  be  defeated  for  reelection  by  Governor  Tillman, 


702 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IX. 


he  would  contest  the  matter  before  the  United  States  Senate 
on  the  ground  that  the  registration  laws  of  the  state  were 
unconstitutional,  and  that  if  a  full  vote  could  have  been 
polled,  his  candidates  would  have  been  elected  to  the  state 
legislature.  The  law  cannot  live  long  in  the  present  political 
atmosphere  of  South  Carolina.  It  is  possible  that  revision  and 
reform  may  come  in  some  of  the  other  states.  The  Southern 
people  desire  to  relieve  themselves  from  the  necessity  of  using 
either  force  or  fraud.  They  recognize  that  both  weaken  the 
moral  sense  and  corrupt  the  body  politic.  They  know  that 
when  the  negro  has  been  eliminated,  as  in  South  Carolina,  the 
same  machinery  will  be  used  by  the  party  in  power  against  the 
the  white  opposition  ;  that  this  is  already  being  done,  is  alleged 
in  South  Carolina  by  the  “  Straight  ”  Democrats,  and  in  North 
Carolina  and  Alabama  by  the  Populists. 

In  seeking  to  employ  the  poll  tax  in  escaping  from  their 
unpleasant  situation,  the  Southern  people  have  comfort  in  the 
opinion  of  Judge  Cooley,  when  he  says:  “To  demand  the 
payment  of  a  capitation  tax  is  no  denial  of  suffrage ;  it  is 
demanding  only  the  preliminary  performance  of  public  duty.”1 
The  five  Southern  states  are  not  alone  in  making  such 
a  demand.  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  New 
Hampshire,  all  require  taxes.  Nor  is  the  requirement  of  an 
educational  qualification  a  denial  of  suffrage;  for  “ability  to 
read  is  something  within  the  power  of  any  man,”  and  only 
makes  him  more  able  to  fulfill  his  civic  duties.  On  the  other 
hand,  unrestricted  suffrage  “robs  intelligence  and  virtue  of  a 
natural  right.  Intelligence  and  virtue  are  disfranchised.  Igno¬ 
rance  and  intelligence,  vice  and  virtue,  are  clothed  with  equal 
power”;  and  Wendell  Phillips  himself,  when  advocating  negrc 
suffrage  in  1865,  admitted  the  righteousness  of  property  and 
educational  qualifications.  Connecticut  set  the  example  in 
this  respect  as  long  ago  as  1855,  when  it  required  all  voten 
to  be  able  to  read  the  constitution  and  the  statutes.  This  wa: 
the  first  requirement  of  the  kind  incorporated  into  a  state 
constitution.  Massachusetts  made  a  similar  requirement  ir 
1  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  263,  264. 


No.  4.]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  703 

1857.  The  Missouri  constitution  of  1865  said  all  voters  should 
be  able  to  read  and  write  after  January  1,  1876.  Maine  adopted 
a  similar  amendment  in  November,  1892.  In  his  message  to 
Congress  on  December  7,  1875,  President  Grant  urged  the 
promotion  of  schools,  and  proposed  that  all  voters  who  could 
not  read  and  write  after  1890  should  be  disfranchised.  It  is 
no  unheard-of  principle  that  has  been  adopted  by  Mississippi 
in  1890  and  Louisiana  in  1894. 

It  would  seem  that  reform  is  already  coming  in  Alabama 
under  the  new  law,  although  the  cry  of  fraud  is  raised  by  the 
opposition ;  for  the  returns  of  late  elections  show  that  the 
Democratic  majorities  come  no  longer  from  the  white  but  from 
the  black  counties,  and  so  well  recognized  has  this  been  that  the 
counties  of  the  black  belt,  while  formerly  all  in  one  Congres¬ 
sional  district,  have  now  been  distributed  among  seven  of  the 
nine  districts  of  the  state.  This  union  of  the  negroes  with 
the  more  influential  and  intelligent  whites,  if  permanent,  will 
profoundly  modify  the  race  question,  and  it  gives  the  combina¬ 
tion  best  able  to  solve  this  problem. 

Stephen  B.  Weeks. 

Bureau  of  Education, 

Washington,  D.C. 


«  <; 


CALL  NUMBER 

Vol. 

1  975.61 

v. 1-22 

1  hTn 

Date  (for  periodical) 

VA 

975.61  N873  P  1889-9?  27013 


